Heading out on an errand, I see an attractive sight: a W115 Coupe (1968-1975). Actually, it started out next to me, but took off surprisingly fast for what I took for a 250C, which was not exactly an overly brisk car in its day, and not one to be driven so today. It was his rapid acceleration that made me notice the nomenclature on the trunk 302C 5.0?!? That’s not original; but what does it mean? The 5.0 emblem and wider tires made me think perhaps he really did drop in a 5.0, either a Merc or? But the 302C? Certainly he’s not alluding to this actual Mercedes 302? Your turn.
Somebody who really wanted a Mustang, but it would be out of place in their neighborhood?
I think you’re on to something. I hadn’t made the connection between the 302 and the 5.0 (Doh!). Bet that’s what it has under the hood.
Ohh, now that would be excellent, my distaste for ‘restomods’ notwithstanding. Authenticity? Well, it’d sound exactly like a new AMG…
I can’t make out the tailpipe(s) clearly, but that may be a clue as to whether the owner is really using an engine twice as large as the original.
BTW, strictly speaking, 302 in³ rounds to 4.9L, not 5.0; Ford is responsible for this misinformation, since they chose to use two significant digits. Obviously there aren’t many “4.9” engine badges in circulation.
I would have assumed true duals if it had a V8, but not necessarily so. He obviously wanted it to look as original as possible.
At the time that Ford started switching over to metric they had a truck 6 cylinder that was closer to 4.9L than the 302 was, so they rounded up to 5.0L.
I’ll take your word for it, yet Ford (at an earlier time) didn’t seem as worried over confusion between their two different 351s.
It would be nice if it could have a “4.9” logo, in the style of Mercedes’ “6.9” logo. Maybe get the “4” from a 400E logo?
The joke is on you Ford never had a 351, they had 4 yes 4 352s, but when the second one came out they decided to call it a 351 to avoid confusion with the FE 352. Then they added the two 335 series engines the Cleavland and Modified but for what ever reason kept the 351 moniker.
Shouldn’t it be a 302 W?
+1
The product of Daimler-Ford which came about in an alternate universe? I think we should have had this car yesterday. 🙂
A Ford 302cid fits pretty good in these. The engine bay is narrow though. In this example the exhaust manifold is swapped around to face forward to clear the steering box.
What a nice install on that. It looks completely stock! Do you have any more info on that car?
Not a whole of detail but check out here – http://www.californiaclassix.com/archive/69_MB220DV8_c473.html
Oh that is a very attractive car. Pristine in fact. The Ford shift selector looks completely fitting.
Want!
LOVE LOVE LOVE that car! It looks just perfect in sky blue with the color-keyed wheel covers. And no worries about engine servicing, though the Mercedes mills on these were pretty robust too.
OK, I’m sold!! Just had to clean up a pile of drool off my keyboard. There are a zillion cool little details about this swap, that’s one of the best factory colors ever offered on the W114 and I love that it looks 100% stock everywhere, even down to the 220 DIESEL badge on the trunk. Can’t believe some lucky bastard got that car for the price of a 2009 Hyundai Sonata, what a steal…
I always thought it would be cool to have a W114/115 or W108 with an American smallblock, but a part of me (the part that loves straight-sixes and classic Benzes) considers it deeply sacrilegious. A Jaguar XJ6 on the other hand…
No doubt the clever badging indicates a Ford 302, which I do think is way cool… I just wouldn’t have the balls to do it myself
I’m guessing any Mercedes V8 of the era would be too wide or tall, right? Although I’ve seen in a couple of Benz enthusiast magazines of W123’s with M117 V8 conversions.
I guess I feel weird about it since there’s a host of pretty sturdy, just not as readily available Mercedes V8’s that are available, seem more “authentic” and well…. more of the experience. Nothing against the 302, or the SBC… but… there’s a number of in house engines that would be just as good or not better.
The Mercedes V8s are significantly bigger. Likely heavier too. OHC engines are almost always physically larger.
That’s the way I feel about it too, but I tend to daydream of things like this in a “perfect world/I just won the lottery” scenario where time and money are no object. Keeping it in the family is undoubtedly cooler, but I know the world won’t be running out of non-operable /8 sedans any time soon… and a SBC 350 in a W114 is still infinitely cooler to me than a SBC 350 in a Camaro or G-Body or what-have-you. Especially if it’s done as beautifully as the car in the link David Saunders posted above.
My college roommate had one of these but it was the 280C with a inline-six. Drove like a video-game, spin the wheel 20 or 30 times and the bow would move in the appropriate direction, eventually. Braking had to be carefully planned and the emergency anchor readied to be deployed… It was an interesting ride… felt more like a U-Boat than a automobile.
Old Mercs have always been expensive to repair and are far from the reliable car the german propaganda would have you believe, Benzs with engine problems are easy to find and the best cure is to replace the original engine with something repairable.
As I come up on 200,000 miles with a “just tune ups” M103 260E…. I beg to differ….
Just like Jaguars Mercs break engines and parts are incredibly expensive, a V8 swap is a common fix the cars themselves are worth little so originality isnt really important.
1) Again, 200K miles, no rebuilds, no catastrophic engine failures. Maybe Australia is harder on cars.
2) Just because you have no knowledge of how to work on them doesn’t mean they aren’t understandable for the rest of us.
You’ve got it, it was cheaper to install a 302/C4 Combo than rebuild the original engine or transmission. Then you have a durable, repairable drive train.
Also, I don’t know what the weight of the M129 six was, but I’m guessing a Ford 302 wouldn’t be much, if any heavier.
It wouldn’t surprise me if a 302 was lighter than the original 6.
Sunrise Motors in DesMoines WA used to do these conversions, including the 302C badge, at least on the one I worked on. As mentioned above it was cheaper than fixing what was in there with the bonus of making the car fun to drive. The one I worked on had a single tail pipe too.
There is a company in Livermore, California, that used to make V8 conversion kits for these and the related diesel powered coupes and sedan models. They also made kits to put V8s in Jaguar XJ6’s, Datsun 240/260/280Z’s, and Volvo 240s and 750s. The company was called something like “Jaguars That Run.”
I have seen ALOT of V8 conversions of Europeans cars mostly Chevy 350 some Ford 302. It looks as though those letters are the stick on kind you can buy at AutoZone or CSK I see them a lot on hoopties around here but usually on cars of ill repute. There is a GE engineer here locally that has dropped a 302EFI in a Volvo 2 door sedan that is something to see. Of course Jag-to-350 conversions are fairly prevalent (or were been a while…).
Any way to tell what may have come in that car originally? Probably not too hard to think that the owner would replace his slow as molasses diesel for some pep especially for a car that isn’t driven daily. Then again a Ford EFI 302 EECIV is not terribly hard to plumb or wire up. Coupled with overdrive transmission he could get upper teens in town to mid 20s highway fairly easily.
Talk about having your cake and eating it too…
Any way to tell what may have come in that car originally? Probably not too hard to think that the owner would replace his slow as molasses diesel for some pep especially for a car that isn’t driven daily.
Looks like it probably started life as a ’71 or ’72 250C, which would’ve had a 2.8l gas engine originally. AFAIK, Mercedes-Benz never offered a diesel in any coupe body until the W123 series. The six was no slouch (about 150-160hp net), but not exactly a 302HO either. They came with Bosch D-Jet EFI and had 4-speed automatics, but I would guess that a port-injected 302 with an overdrive would get considerably better gas mileage. Nearly all M-B transmissions (auto or manual) back then, and right up until the late 90s, had a direct drive top gear and the cars usually came with autobahn friendly axle ratios. I’ve always gotten the impression that Mercedes’ attitude towards fuel economy in that era was “if you’re concerned about it, we also sell a 60 horsepower diesel!”
The V8 Volvos and Jaguars are really cool too, all that stuff is right up my alley. I’m surprised I haven’t seen a Peugeot 505 (or 604!) with an American V8 yet, although I’m sure there’s at least one out there.
I don’t know about the /8 cars, but at least on the 280SL, Mercedes specified ridiculously short axle ratios for the U.S. cars on the assumption that people weren’t likely to spend much time over 70 mph anyway. The 1969-70 280SL’s standard ratio was 4.08, which gave something like 17 mph/1,000 rpm.
The one site I found giving stats for a US-spec ’71-’72 250C shows a 3.69:1 rear end. With the stock 25.1″ tire size, that should work out to turning roughly 20mph/1,000rpm in 4th. Not quite as extreme as the SL, but still pretty aggressive. Every US-model Benz from back then (with the possible exception of the V8 powered W108/109s) seems like it was set up from the factory for the maximum possible acceleration in all gears… a strategy they apparently stuck with for a long time. I know even the first M-B 5-speed automatics used a 1:1 top gear!
Originally could’ve been a 250 with the SOHC or the 280 with the DOHC. Most likely a 250 as those had the twin tailpipes but the ones on this car don’t look original so I dunno. Love the wider tires and stance.
Agreed, this looks wicked!!
Whether it had the 2.5l or 2.8l, it would’ve been the older single-cam six. The DOHC unit wasn’t available in the US until ’73 (at the earliest, though it may have been even later) and the taillamps identify this as an earlier model. Also, all the early US coupes were “250Cs” regardless of engine size. Usually M-B’s numbering system does indicate engine size, but sometimes it’s just an arbitrary series designation. That’s how we ended up with stuff like a “280SEL 4.5”
The twin-cam 6 was most certainly available in 73, at least on the sedan, my mom had one lol. The 250 sedan became the 280 sedan that year and still had the small bumpers and non-ribbed taillamps. It had to follow that the 250C became the 280C that year, no?
Minor point: The rear bumper became wrap around on the sedan in 73 but the coupe had that since its US introduction in, I believe, 1970.
250 in my note refers to the 250C model designation not the engine size, that would have been pretty small 🙂
What I’m saying here is that since this car has the ’69-’72 taillamps (’73+ was different), it’s thus not a twin-cam six (or a 280C) because neither the twin-cam six or 280C name existed in the US until 1973. So it’s either a 250C with a 2.5l SOHC six if it’s a ’69-’70 model or a 250C with a 2.8l SOHC six if it’s a ’71-’72 model… unless it’s a grey market import, in which case screw it, I give up!! :p
Actually, the 2.5L was never offered in US-bound 250Cs. The first MY was 1970, and US cars had the 157hp twin-carb 2.8 L SOHC from the 280S. R&T tested one in 1970, and its 0-60 was an anemic 13.6 seconds. Final drive was 3.92:1.
The Mercedes DOHC six was badly strangled in the US versions compared to the Euro version. Its power output was quite low, and the Mercedes were getting heavier. A W116 280SE is a real slug.
Well I’ll have to apologize then. I just assumed they were all fuel-injected, being the top-rung engine option on the W114 in those years… the displacement year-to-year I wasn’t really sure on. This is my go-to quick reference for most cars: http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/mercedes-benz/w-115/w-114_coupe/1970.html and they listed the 2.5l for 1970, but rockauto.com (more accurate, less detailed) agrees that they were only ever 2.8 liters in the US.
Almost 14 seconds 0-60 = ouch 🙁 That kills a little bit of the mystique these always had for me. I always imagined they were considerably quicker, or at the very least able to outrun base model Ford Escorts. On the other hand, knowing this fact makes the 302C 5.0 version look all the more attractive.
I have seen early Benz of this era with twin Zenith cars. I always though it was 73 or so when they went to the Jetronic units. Those Jetronics were analog speed density units relying on physical input to adjust the system rather than electronic impulses with interpretation by a computer. I know my 81 Imperial was one of the first truly fully electronic EFI units that relied strictly on voltage readings for data collection. My 76 Seville, which was a partial Bendix/Regina type system was analog.
http://members.rennlist.com/pbanders/djetfund.htm
A little Euro/Jetronic porn.
I’m really starting to see the rationale for this swap. The Mercedes sixes until the 1985 W124 300E were all rather badly strangled by emission regs from about 1970 on. They were originally designed to be fairly high-rpm engines, and were notoriously weak in low-rev torque, so the emissions regs really were hard on them. And most US-bound cars had A/C, automatic and other power accessories, and were getting heavy. They really tend to feel sluggish, and never wake up like the olde ones used to.
The W124 both lost several hundred pounds, and its new engine was designed for the new era. The 300E was the first MBZ six to feel lively in quite awhile.
Road and Track also complained about drive-ability issues with their 1970 280C with the carbs.
I am not sure anyone would want to be seen in a 504 with a V8.
Of course it is easier to install a carb V8 but the EECIV 302 probably the easiest EFI swap of the V8s.
I am not sure the German’s have a laissez-faire attitude on MPG gas is expensive there but M-B is a halo car not one driven by the masses.
I have been on the autobahns in Germany, driven some but as a passenger we did reach 140km/h once in an S-class M-B which was something.
I wonder if this owner had this picture on the wall…
The way Mercedes-Benz sells cars in Germany and most of Europe has always been considerably different from the way they’re sold in the US. Here, you can pretty much only get them in “expensive” or “more expensive” form, limited to the higher trim levels and engine options. On the other side of the Atlantic there has always been a much wider range of models, drivetrains and options available. Everything from total stripper, barebones taxis to V12 factory limousines with bulletproof armor.
European W114s were available with a 5-speed manual that had an O/D top gear all along, but it took M-B another 15 years or so to offer any overdrive transmission in North America – and nearly into the 2000s to start offering an O/D automatic.
Peugeot tried the same thing, “expensive” or “more expensive” forms only in the US. Went badly. That’s why Americans hate them so much, we never got the simple stalwart Peugeots.
Ah I see the confusion. I’m saying the taillamps were the same 69-73. They didn’t change until 74 when they became ribbed to go with the big bumpers. But I could be wrong…
Interesting. In 1972, “Motor Trend” reviewed a Merc 280SL powered by a 327 Chevrolet and loved it. M-B build quality allied to Yankee torque would be a seductive combination.
The best thing about going with the Ford 289/302 small block is that it fits in just about anything. It’s a very compact engine with the distributor up front. Probably the main reason why it became the engine of choice in the Sunbeam Tiger and ACC/Cobra. It’s also fairly light. The fuel injected varients (5.0) can also be made to fit in about the same dimensions if you go with the low hood clearance models from the 94-95 Mustang / 91-93 Thunderbird.
All of the overhead cam V8’s in modern cars are massive in size and rarely fit into older cars without major work. For example, the new 5.0 engine in the new Mustang (completely unreleated to the old 5.0) is wider than it is long. I suspect a modern Merc V8 won’t fit in there for similar reasons.
Only problem with the Tiger, at least here in the Sunbelt (as my friend found), is susceptibility to overheating. My guess is, the front grill is too small; that’s a risk of such transplants. Otherwise it’s a great combo of rumbling Yankee power & Brit agility, plus engine parts logistics.
I don’t know about Daimler-Benz, but Ford & GM continue to sell new crate motors.
They overheat in first generation Mustangs too, and for the same reason… Little Falcon radiators and small radiator support openings.
Still I’d love to have a Sunbeam Tiger.
Love the girl on the motorcycle pic that the link sent me to. 302 in a Merc? Yeah, no prob, also I have seen alot of V8 swaps into Volvos on Bring A Trailer.
Ford called the 302 a 5.0 because they already had a 300 cubic inch six cylinder that they called the 4.9. Avoided some confusion and make the 5.0 ‘faster’ 🙂
It would be interesting to drive such a car around the block but other than that to replace such a car’s engine with anything other than stock seems much like trying to get a dog to meow.
I’m betting that dog meows very well.
The C is clearly keeping the original M-B nomenclature, C for coupe.
While on the topic of engine swaps, I saw a 230D with a Commodore-sourced 3800 & 4sp auto in it, the guy said it was lighter than the 4cyl Merc engine.
That’s one cool coupe but I think this Ford-powered Jaguar Mark IX is pretty sweet too.
http://louisville.craigslist.org/cto/3688993305.html
That’s an interesting car. I am generally an originality fan, but some restomods are nice if done right. As for ths car, since Ford owned Jag for a good while, dropping a 302 I guess wouldn’t be considered sacrilege – hey it worked with the X-type…
So I suppose if the owner of this Mercedes coupe dropped a 318 or 360 he could get away with saying he was “keeping it in the family….” lol well at least before 2008.
They used to do conversions of American cars over here in Hungary and they have swapped the big V8s to smaller Mercedes diesel engines. It is certainly funny that this was done to a Merc the way around in America.
You’re killing me with that 220D V8. My parents owned a ’72 220D for a time in the early 80’s. Had to rebuild the engine not long after they bought it.
0-60 could be timed with a sundial. I finally got vanity plates for it – REAL SLO. Throttle spring was a great ankle workout. I loved that car – my mom, not so much. Hated the glow plugs and having to wait before you could start it.
It got traded in for a Toyota Celica.
If I’d only known that a swap to a V8 was possible, I would have tried talking the folks into it.